Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2021 September Day 28 - Tuesday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
Login to see detailed Newsletter

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
September 28, 2021

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy Service Tax CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Highlights / Catch Notes

  • Income Tax:

    Deduction u/s 54F - Rejection of claim for Constructing more than one house - An independent building can have a number of residential units and it will not lose the character of “one residential house”. - we are unable to agree with the view taken by the tax authorities that each floor of the individual house/each portion in a floor is separate house property. - AT

  • Income Tax:

    Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - surrendered of the income - The assessee has nowhere disputed the said surrender being made under coercive circumstances or under compulsion. Even otherwise, the surrender is not without any basis but the entry of share application money is very much in existence which was accepted by the assessee as accommodation entries. Therefore, there is no substance or merit in the contention of the Ld. AR that surrender was made by the assessee to buy peace of mind. - AT

  • Income Tax:

    Addition u/s 68 - unexplained credit - addition of share application money received - the assessee has proceeded on the basis as if the onus is on the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the share subscriptions in question are malafide and cooked up and that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of these share subscriptions; that is certainly incorrect. The burden is thus on the assessee to prove the nature and source of credits in his books of accounts, to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Everything thus hinges on the explanation given by the assessee and on how acceptable is the explanation so given by the assessee - Relief granted by the CIT(A) withdrawn - AT

  • Income Tax:

    Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Non reference of matter to the TPO - no prudent business person properly instructed in law would have inferred the TP risk parameter as a reason for scrutiny so as to mandatorily make reference u/s. 92C of the Act in terms of CBDT Instruction No. 3/16 and failure to make such reference made the assessment order erroneous. In our opinion, the TP risk parameter was not one of the reasons for limited scrutiny of the case and as such the PCIT was not justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s. 263 - AT

  • Income Tax:

    Revision u/s 263 - Exemption u/s 11 - If the order of the AO does not disclose the basis of his conclusion, then jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act can be ignored. Therefore, the CIT was justified in directing the AO to examine the allowability of these items of expenditure. The assessee is always at liberty to show as to how the material found in the survey was not sufficient to make any additions in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT. - AT

  • Customs:

    Confiscation of goods - import of e-rickshaw in CKD condition without battery - requirement to produce the ‘Type Approval Certificate’ under the provisions of Rule 126 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules - Admittedly, the goods in question are freely importable, there being no restriction under the Foreign Trade Policy - The requirement of ‘Type Approval Certificate’ is not warranted for import of spare parts or kits in CKD condition. - The appellant shall not be responsible to pay any warehousing charges, and all such charges, if any, shall be borne by the Customs Department /Government - AT

  • Customs:

    Levy of penalty - Misdeclaration of quantity in the impugned consignments - It is a settled principle of law that a corrigendum cannot be issued altering the issues causing undue disadvantage to the Noticee - The penalty was imposed under Section 114A, even though the same was not proposed in the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities and such an order cannot be upheld. In this case, the appellants having adhered to the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 have rightful claim as per the provisions of Section 28(6) ibid. - AT

  • Customs:

    Claim of benefit of exemption - re-imported air craft engines and parts thereof which were exported for the purposes of repairs/ reconditioning etc. - It is very clear that additional duty, integrated tax, compensation cess are exempted and customs duty would be limited to be taxed on the value of the fair cost of repairs carried out including cost of materials used in repairs, insurance and freight charges. - AT

  • Customs:

    Levy of penalty u/s 112 and 117 of CA on CHA and G card holder - mis-classification and mis-declaration of goods - The negligence of both the appellants herein is definitely the violation of their incumbent duty. This penalty has rightly been imposed upon them. - there are no infirmity when penalty under section 112 (b)(i) has been imposed instead of it being imposed under CBLR. Similarly, penalty has been imposed upon under section 117 which is for such contravention as are not expressly mentioned under the Customs Act, 1962. - AT

  • Customs:

    Remission / Refund of Customs Duty - pilfered goods - the out of charge order i.e. order for clearance for home consumption was given on 18 May, 2011. Pilferage was noticed after the joint survey which was conducted on 23 May, 2011 i.e. after the said OOC was passed. It will not Section 23 which deals only with the permanent loss or damage to the goods that too before OOC but section 13 as shall be applicable which deals only with respect to goods pilfered but only if pilferage is noticed prior OOC. None is the fact of the present case. Neither duty exemption under Section 13 of Customs Act nor the remission of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act is available to the appellant. The question of refund of duty paid does not arise. - AT

  • Customs:

    Levy of penalty u/s 117 of CA - Legality of removal of goods from Customs Area - Statutory obligation and liability of Custodian - The use of words while ‘includes the custodian’ again corroborates the finding of the Adjudicating Authority Below. The legislature clearly intends for custodian to be always responsible about the duty as far as handling of cargo in customs area is concerned. Rule 5 of these Regulations talks about the conditions to be fulfilled by the Customs Cargo service provider. - AT

  • Indian Laws:

    Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of presumption - The case put forth by the respondent does not satisfy the requirement of rebuttal even if tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Therefore, in the present facts it cannot be held that the presumption which had arisen in favour of the appellant had been successfully rebutted by the respondent herein. The High Court therefore was not justified in its conclusion. - SC

  • Indian Laws:

    Liability to pay the amount of certain cheques signed by him (as employee consultant) - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Since the opposite party is a sole proprietorship consultancy of Mr. I.J. Aneja, therefore, the liability of payment of investments would be that of Mr. I.J. Aneja and not of the employees who were engaged by Mr. Aneja at different places such as Nehru Place, NOIDA and Ghaziabad - Since, the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appellant is an employee engaged by the sole proprietorship consultancy, there cannot be any personal liability which can be inflicted upon the appellant by virtue of only being an employee of a sole proprietorship. - SC

  • Indian Laws:

    If the accused is unable to show the failure of justice, a direction for re-trial/de novo trial cannot be granted. This Court is of the opinion that the failure on the part of the Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to mark the documents produced by the Respondent no.1 as exhibits, at worse can be termed as an error/omission/irregularity but, there is nothing to show that the same occasioned failure of justice. The Appellate Court was fully justified in holding that the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice caused to him. - HC

  • IBC:

    Validity of decision of IRP/RP holding that the claimant/ Applicant is a Financial Creditor but is not eligible to be a part of CoC - related party in terms of Section 5(24)(m) & 5(24) (i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Respondent No. 1 ASK Investment Managers Ltd is a related party to the Corporate Debtor; therefore, it cannot be made part of COC with voting rights - AT

  • Service Tax:

    Demand of service tax - Valuation - Failure to include TDS amounts in the assessable value - The Revenue has not been able to establish any amount whatsoever has been deducted by service recipient and deposited with the Income Tax Authorities. - Additions deleted - AT

  • VAT:

    Rectification of mistake - petition not instituted, at least within the stipulated period for preferring an appeal - Invocation of the High Court’s power to issue high prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to levy and collection of tax, in view of such fora made available by the statute, ought not to be permitted as a matter of course or else the will of the people expressed by the legislature in the relevant enactment would be rendered nugatory. - HC

  • VAT:

    Violation of principles of natural justice - Validity of assessment order - documents and details sought for by the Appellant have not been furnished - availability of alternative remedy or not - there has been a specific request made by the Appellant in the representation 18.11.2013 to grant an opportunity of personal hearing. - There have been gross violation of principles of natural justice, which would justify that the Appellant is entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court - HC


Articles


Notifications


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2021 (9) TMI 1113
  • Income Tax

  • 2021 (9) TMI 1141
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1139
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1138
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1137
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1136
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1133
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1129
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1128
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1126
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1125
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1124
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1151
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1123
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1122
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1120
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1119
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1118
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1146
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1145
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1116
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1142
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1114
  • Customs

  • 2021 (9) TMI 1140
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1135
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1134
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1132
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1131
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1130
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1150
  • Securities / SEBI

  • 2021 (9) TMI 1143
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2021 (9) TMI 1121
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1156
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1117
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1115
  • Service Tax

  • 2021 (9) TMI 1127
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2021 (9) TMI 1153
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1152
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1149
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1144
  • Indian Laws

  • 2021 (9) TMI 1159
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1148
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1158
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1157
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1147
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1112
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1155
  • 2021 (9) TMI 1154
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates